## ICR Supporting Statement Information Collection Request: National Pretreatment Program

OMB Control No . 2040

- 0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.16

December 2015

Prepared for

United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 2046 0

EPA Contract Number EP

- C

- 11

- 0 09 EPA Work Assignment Number 4

- 22December 2015 ii



## Contents

A. Justification

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and explain the legal or administrative requirements relevant to the collection and attach a copy of the statute or regulation authorizing the collection

................................ ................................ .................... 1 2. Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to be used

............................... 2
3. Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use of automated processes or information technology to aid with the collection

................................ ................................ 9

4. Describe the efforts to identify duplication

................................ ................................ ................. 10 5. Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities

................................ ...................... 10 6. Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 7. Explain any special circumstances associated with “extraordinary burden” placed on respondents

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 11 8. Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice in the Federal Register

.. 11 9. Explain any decision to provide compensation to respondents

................................ ................. 11 10. Describe any assurance of co nfidentiality provided to respondents

................................ ........ 11 11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature

................................ .... 12
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information

................................ ..... 12 13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to Respondents

................................ ..... 13 14. Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the federal government

................................ ... 13 15. Explain the reason s for an adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB Form 83

- I

.......... 14 16. Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the in formation

................................ ......... 14 17. Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB approval

.............................. 15 18. Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 1320.9, “Agency Certifications for Proposed Collections of Information.”

................................ ................................ ............... 15 B. Statistical Methods (used for collection of information employing statistical methods)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 15 Appendix A

- Description of the Information Collected and Methodology for Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection

................................ ........................ 16

A.1. Respondent Burden

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 16

A.1.1. Burden to States

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17

A.1.2. Burden to POTWs

................................ ................................ ................................ 19
A.1.3. Burden to Industrial Users

................................ ................................ ................... 22

A.2. Respondent Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 28

A.2.1. Cost to States

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 28

A.2.2. Cost to POTWs

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 29
A.2.3. Cost to Industrial Users

................................ ................................ ........................ 29 Appendix B

– Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost Estimates

....................... 31 Appendix C

– Detailed Results of Respondent Burden and C ost Analysis for the Information Collection Requirements of the National Pretreatment Program

..... 33 Appendix D

- Copy of Regulation Authorizing Data Collection and Federal Register

Notice

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 34 D.1 Pretreatment Streamlining Rule

................................ ................................ .............................. 34 D.2 ICR Federal Register Notice

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 34December 2015 1



## A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection necessary and explain the legal or administrative requirements relevant to the collection and attach a copy of the statute or regulation authorizing

the collection

This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and costs associated with managing and implementing the National Pretreatment Program as mandated under sections 402(a) and (b) and 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (C WA or the Act). This ICR includes all existing tasks under the National Pretreatment Program, as amended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Streamlining Rule.

EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) implements the National Pretreatm ent Program on the basis of requirements first promulgated in the CWA in June 1978. The CWA requires EPA to develop these regulations to establish responsibilities among federal, state, and local government, industry, and the public to implement pretreatme nt standards to control pollutants that pass through or interfere with publicly owned treatment works’ (POTW) treatment processes or that may contaminate sewage sludge. The regulations have been revised numerous times since they were first published in 197 8; currently, they consist of 20 sections and several appendices. The most recent revision, the Streamlining Rule (Federal Register [FR] vol. 70, page 60134), was published on October 14, 2005, and became effective November 14, 2005. See Appendix D for a c opy of the regulations authorizing the information collection

.

Unlike other environmental programs that rely on federal or state governments to implement and enforce specific requirements, the National Pretreatment Program places most of the responsibilit y on local municipalities. Specifically, the program requires all POTWs with design flows of more than 5 million gallons per day (mgd), as well as small POTWs with design flow less than 5 mgd that receive discharges from significant industrial users (SIUs) , which may pass through or interfere with the operation of the POTW, or are otherwise subject to National Pretreatment Standards, to establish local pretreatment programs. Approved POTWs enforce all national Pretreatment Standards and Requirements, as wel l as any more stringent local requirements determined necessary to protect the POTW and its workers, through local

programs. Authorized s tates may opt to implement statewide pretreatment programs in lieu of requiring POTWs to do so. In statewide pretreatme nt programs, industrial users (IUs) submit data directly to state control authorities.

Each control authority, in turn, must have its program approved by the entity responsible for overseeing implementation and enforcement of the National Pretreatment Pro gram. An approval authority is either a state, provided it is authorized by EPA to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and National Pretreatment Program, or an EPA regional

office. EPA Regional Office s are the approval aut horities for states that opt to implement statewide pretreatment programs rather than requiring their POTWs to implement programs.

Information is routinely shared between approval authorities and control authorities to ensure

that the National Pretreatment Program is being properly implemented.December 2015 2

The active ICR (OMB Control No . 2040

- 0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.15 ) was published in the Federal Register on August, 25, 2011 (76 FR 53123). This ICR renewal estimates the program

bu rden and costs for January 201 6 , through January 201 9

.



### 2. Indicate how, by whom and for what purpose the information is to

be used

Section 402(b) of CWA requires EPA to develop national pretreatment standards to control industrial discharges into sewage systems. The purpose of these standards is to prevent pollutants

from passing through the treatment plant or interfering with treatme nt plant operations , possibly

result ing in damage to the environment or a threat to public health. As detailed below, several serious problems can occur when industrial wastes are introduced into sewage systems.

 Pass through of toxic pollutants into recei ving waters. Industrial pollutants that pass through treatment systems into receiving waters can cause fish kills, destroy aquatic habitat, increase the risk of cancer in humans, and render receiving waters unsuitable for drinking or

recreation.

 Interferen ce with treatment plant operations. Municipal wastewater treatment systems are designed to handle typical household waste and biodegradable commercial and industrial wastes. Toxic industrial compounds that do not pass directly through the system might

inte rfere with plant operations.

 Contamination of sewage sludge. Toxic compounds remaining in sewage sludge might render it unsuitable for certain disposal methods, such as land application or incineration.

 Corrosion of pipes and equipment . Industrial dischar ges with high or low pH values can cause corrosion in the sewage collection system or the treatment plant, resulting in the need for premature repair or replacement of pipes and equipment.

 Explosion of highly volatile wastes. Industrial wastes can explode under particular conditions within the sewage collection system or treatment operations as a result of inadvertent mixing of volatile compounds, causing widespread damage to treatment facilities and posing a serious risk to plant operators.

 Interaction of wastes to produce toxic gases. Industrial discharges such as acidic wastes can interact with other wastes in the collection system, causing the release of toxic gases.

EPA has developed National Pretreatment Program standards for situations common to all sewage systems, as well as those serving specific industries. National standards apply regardless of whether the source is subject to other federal, state, or local pretreatment standards. The regulations establish general and specific discharge prohibitio ns (40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b)) that apply to all IUs.

In addition to the general and specific prohibitions , EPA has developed specific standards for certain industrial categories; they are called categorical pretreatment standards . These standards specify maximum and average quantities or concentrations of certain pollutants or pollutant properties that IUs in certain industrial categories may discharge to a POTW. The categorical standards may also specify other practices that categorical industrial users (CIUs) must employDecember 2015 3

to protect POTWs. EPA develops these categorical standards to restrict the discharge of certain toxic pollutants that the Agency has identified as posing the greatest threat to human health or

the envir onment. Facilities subject to categorical standards must also comply with the general and specific prohibitions . Certain categorical standards allow CIUs to submit periodic certifications or develop pollution prevention plans to reduce or take the place of analytical sampling requirements.

Finally, EPA requires the control authority (CA), which is usually the POTW, to develop and enforce limits according to local, site

- specific situations. These local limits ensure that IUs meet general and specific prohib itions detailed at 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b). They are federally enforceable pretreatment standards, as defined in section 307(d) of the CWA. If the local limits are more stringent than the categorical standards, the more stringent limit applies and is

enfor ceable as a federal standard.

EPA, together with the various approval authorities and control authorities (described below)

, implements these standards through the National Pretreatment Program. These entities need

information to

 Authorize state and local programs

 Monitor and enforce compliance with the national standards

 Determine the applicability of categorical standards

 Develop and enforce local limits

The information collection requirements discussed in this ICR are authorized by sections 301,

3 07(b), 308, 402(a), and 402(b) of the CWA. These sections provide for state administration of the NPDES program, which controls point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. According to the CWA, states must also develop programs to ensure POTW compliance with the requirements of the national pretreatment regulations. Under the same authority, POTWs must identify all IUs that discharge pollutants subject to categorical standards under section 307(b) of the Act and certain POTWs must develop a pretreatment program to ensure compliance with these standards.

The administration of the National Pretreatment Program involves three levels of authority, as

described below.

 Oversight Authority (OA). EPA Regional Office s oversee state pretre atment programs. They also assume the responsibilities of the approval authority (AA) or control authority (CA)

where states or POTWs do not have authorized pretreatment programs.

 Approval Authority (AA). A state applying for an approved NPDES program mus t also

obtain approval authority for its pretreatment program. The AA approves POTW pretreatment programs, oversees POTW program implementation, and assumes the responsibility of the CA for POTWs that do not have a pretreatment program.

 Control Authority ( CA). The CA is responsible for implementing the pretreatment program, including establishing control mechanisms for compliance assessment and enforcement of the national standards, categorical standards, and local limits. A POTW with a pretreatmentDecember 2015 4

progra m approved by the AA becomes the CA. If the POTW does not obtain such approval, the state or the EPA region assumes the responsibility of the CA.

Table 2. 1 shows the possible combinations of authority, while Table 2. 2 outlines the responsibilities of each authority.

Table 2.1 Authority under the pretreatment program

POTW with Approved

Pretreatment Program State with Approved

Pretreatment Program Control

Authority Approval

Authority Oversight

Authority

Yes Yes POTW State EPA

Yes No POTW EPA EPA

No Yes State State EPA

No No EPA EPA EPA

Table 2.2 Responsibilities of each authority

Oversight Authority (EPA)

 Evaluates pretreatment programs on a national basis and oversees state pretreatment programs to ensure that they meet federal requirements.

 Approves state pretreatment program requests.

 Acts as AA or CA in cases where states or POTWs do not have pretreatment programs.

Approval Authority (Approved States or EPA Regions)

 Reviews POTW pretreatment programs to determine adequacy.

 Assists POTWs in ensurin g compliance with pretreatment requirements.

 Audits/inspects approved POTWs to assess compliance (may also inspect IUs).

 Takes appropriate action against POTWs that fail to implement or enforce pretreatment standards at IUs not in compliance (where POTW does not take action).

 Acts as CA in cases where the POTW does not have a pretreatment program.

Control Authority (Approved POTWs, Approved States, or EPA Regions)

 Has primary responsibility for implementing the pretreatment program.

 Ensures that IUs comply with discharge standards , reporting requirements, and certification requirements.

 Inspects or reviews self

- monitoring reports from IUs.

 Enforces against noncomplying IUs.

The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for these three types of pretreatment standards (general, specific, and local limits) are explained in more detail in Appendix A. In general, EPA, states, and POTWs use the information collected under the National Pretreatment Program for program development and implementation purposes. Table s 2. 3 through 2. 5 summarize the information collected by type and indicate how and by whom th eDecember 2015 5

information is used. Users of the information include oversight authorities, approval authorities, control authorities, POTWs, IUs, and the public.

Table 2.3 Uses of data collected for program development

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/
Citati on (40 CFR) Uses of the Data

State pretreatment program approval request State OA 403.10 To evaluate the adequacy of the state’s pretreatment program in terms of legal authority, procedural requirements, and appropriate staff and funding

POTW pretreatment compliance schedule progress report POTW AA 403.8, 403.9, 403.12(k) To determine whether the POTW is on

schedule in developing its program so that the AA can provide assistance or take enforcement action, if necessary

POTW pretreatment

progra m approval request POTW AA 403.8(b),

403.9 To evaluate the adequacy of the

POTW’s pretreatment program in terms of legal authority, justification of local limits, compliance monitoring, administrative procedures, and appropriate staff and funding

Maintain pretreatment program information* AA, OA,
POTW Stored

on

- site 403.11(f),

403.14 To provide public access to information

characterizing the pretreatment program (e.g., information about POTW program approval submissions)

*This is a recordkeeping requireme nt, not a reporting requirement. Though no submission is required, AAs, OAs, and
POTWs incur burden.

Oversight authorities evaluate state pretreatment programs based on information about the programs' legal authority, procedural requirements, and staff and funding appropriateness. In addition, oversight authorities use information about an IU to determine whether a particular categorical standard or subcategory applies to the IU. The oversight authority burden is incurred by the f ederal g overnment only and is a small component of overall burden.

Approval authorities use information collected under the pretreatment program to identify and locate IUs that might be subject to national pretreatment standards. Approval authorities also use

information about IUs to protect the POTW and its workers by prohibiting ignitable, obstructive, or reactive discharges from IUs. These authorities also use the data to determine whether a POTW’s pretreatment program is adequate and properly implemented. In addition, approv al authorities use the information to monitor a POTW’s compliance with pretreatment program requirements. Note that much of the data use d by approval authorities could also be used by

control authorities.

Control authorities use data from IUs to determine the types and amounts of pollutants that industries are discharging to a POTW, to track IU compliance with installation schedules for pretreatment equipment, and to ensure IU compliance with applicable certification requirements.

Control authorities also use IU data to monitor an industry’s compliance with pretreatment standards, to enforce these standards, to note changes in the volume or nature of pollutants, andDecember 2015 6

to evaluate the effects of an anticipated bypass. In addition, control authorities use IU in s pections

to determine whether the IU needs to take steps to reduce the risks of slug, spill, and batch discharges.

Control authorities use information from approval authorities to determine their obligations under the national pretreatment regulations, s pecifically those for operating and maintaining equipment and those requiring sampling and reporting of pollutant levels.

IUs use information received from control authorities to understand the pollutant levels that must not be exceeded in their discharge s and related treatment, sampling, and reporting requirements.

The public also uses information received under the National Pretreatment Program when notices of significant noncompliance (SNC) by IUs or control authorities are published in local

newspaper s.

Table 2.4 Uses of data collected for program implementation

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ Citation (40 CFR) Uses of the Data

Baseline monitoring report IU CA 403.12(b) To identify appropriate pretreatment

stand ar ds; t o ensure compliance with the standards by each source; to determine whether schedules for compliance are reasonable; and to establish, verify, or expand knowledge o f the types and extent
of industrial contributions to POTWs

IU compliance schedule

progress report IU CA 403.12(c) To determine compliance with scheduled deadlines for installation of pretreatment technology and categorical standards

IU compliance attainment report IU CA 403.12(d) To determine compliance with final applicable pretreatment standards and whether IU needs additional operation and maintenance (O&M) or pretreatment to

attain standards

IU resampling compliance report IU CA 403.12(g) To demonstrate return to comp liance.

IU request for coverage under general control

mechanism IU CA 403.8(f)(1)
(A)(2) To determine whether an IU qualifies for a

general permit

IU self

- monitoring compliance report IU CA 403.12(e), 403.12(h) To ensure continued IU compliance with

the pretreatment standards and to
determine whether enforcement actions

are necessary

Pollution prevention plan (Voluntary) IU CA 455.41 T o support decisions regarding allowing CIUs to reduce or eliminate analytical sampling requirements ; t o ensure that IUs covered by the Pesticides Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging effluentDecember 2015 7

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ Citation (40 CFR) Uses of the Data

guidelines have prepared a pollution prevention plan as an alternative to zero discharge

Periodic certifications IU CA Varies** To ensure IUs practicing reduced monitoring comply with certification requirements and meet criteria for reduced monitoring

POTW monitoring

records and
documentation of best management practices (BMPs)* POTW Stored

on site 403.12(o), To allow AA to verify POTW compliance

with national p retreatment s tandards and

r equirements

IU monitoring records
and documentation of

BMPs* IU Stored

on site 403.12(o) To allow CA to verify IU compliance with

national pretreatment standards and requirements

Annual POTW reports CA AA 403.12(i) To adequately oversee POTW pretreatment programs and resulting national implementation status; also, to ensure compliance with n ational

p retreatment s tandards and r equirements

Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) AA OA Compliance Monitoring Strategy T he PCI evaluates the POTW’s

implementation of its authorized pretreatment program. It includes a review of the POTW’s records on monitoring, inspections, and enforcement activities for its industrial users. The PCI may be supplemented with industrial user inspections.

POTW program

modifications CA AA 403.18 To modify pretreatment programs on the basis of local conditions and to provide AAs with opportunities to accept or deny such requests

Notice of potential problems, including slug loading IU CA 403.12(f) To enable the POTW to plan and carry out protective actions immediately after a change in volume or character of an IU discharge

Notification of significant change affecting equivalent mass limits or

concentration limits IU CA 403.6(c)(9) To ensure that the CA has a reasonable basis for calculating mass or concentration limits based on a production

- based

standard

Notification of changed discharge IU CA 403.12(j) To ensure that the CA has the necessary information to adequately notify the
NPDES pretreatment authority of substantial changes in discharge

Upset notification IU CA 403.16 To inform the CA of descriptions of known upsets at the IU. Reporting of upsets is required particularly if IU wishes toDecember 2015 8

Type of Data Collected From To Authority/ Citation (40 CFR) Uses of the Data

establish the affirmative defense of the upset for an action brought for non

compliance

Bypass notification IU CA 403.17 To inform t he CA of the intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of an IU’s treatment facility

Notification of changed monitoring location IU CA 403.6(e)(4) To inform the CA of any change in location of an IU's monitoring point(s) so that the CA may carry out its compliance monitoring and enforcement responsibilities

Determination of non

significant categorical

industrial users (NSCIUs) and middle tier CIUs (Voluntary) CA

IU AA, IU

CA 403.3(v)(2), 403.8(f)(2)(v), 403.12(e), (g), (i), and (q) For CA to determine whether IU is an

NSCIU or middle tier CIU and thus subject to less stringent reporting, inspection, and sampling requirements

Issuance of discharge permits or other control
mechanisms for SIUs CA IU 403.8(f) To give SIUs notice of all pretreatment requirements and to improve enforcement

Inspection and sampling of IU effluent (including slug control plans) CA AA 403.8(f)(2)(v) To monitor industrial discharges to POTW

treatment facilities

Public notification of significant noncompliance CA Public 403.8(f)(2)(viii) To inform the public of instances of significant noncompliance

Prevention and control plan for spills and batch discharges IU

CA CA

AA 403.8(f)(2)(vi) For CAs t o notify SIUs of the need for planning to minimize the risk of slug, spill, and batch discharges. Documentation of
the POTW’s activities must be made available to the AA upon request so the
AA can determine whether the POTW is adequately evaluating whether its SIUs need slug discharge control plans.

Evaluation of the need to

revise local limits CA AA 403.5(c) To evaluate whether CAs have developed appropriate local limits to implement the general and specific prohibitions

. POTW enforcement response plan CA AA 403.8(f)(5) To assist in determining whether CAs have effective enforcement programs

*This is a recordkeeping requirement, not a reporting requirement. Though no submission is required, IUs incur burden.

**See section 2 of this ICR.December 2015 9

Table 2.5 Uses of data collected for program/categorical determinations

Type of Data Collected From To Authority /
Citation (40 CFR) Uses of the Data

Categorical determination request IU, CA AA/OA 403.6(a) To enable the AA/OA to determine the applicability of a categorical standard or subcategory to an IU

Alternative limits modification request IU CA 403.6(e) To notify the CA of any material or significant change in the values used to

calculate an alternative limit

Fundamentally different factors variance request IU, CA OA 403.13 To provide plant

- specific data necessary
for a CA to determine whether an IU's production processes or technologies are fundamentally different from the representative facilities used to determine the limits specified in a categorical standard and, if so, to adjust the limits. This information provides the empirical data used to evaluate the appropriateness
of national standards.

Net/gross adjustment request IU CA 403.15 To enable CA to determine whether an applicable pretreatment standard should be revised (i.e., to ensure that an IU is not required to remove a greater amount of a pollutant than is already present in its intake water)

Removal credit approval request POTW AA 403.7 To enable AA to authorize a POTW to calculate a revised categorical standard reflecting pollutant removals already resulting from specific POTW design capabilities

Removal credit self

monitoring report POTW AA 403.7 To enable AA to monitor ongoing POTW pollutant removals, which form the basis for revised categorical standards for the
POTW's users



### 3. Describe whether and to what extent the collection involves the use
of automated processes or information technol ogy to aid with the
collection

In general, IUs and POTWs provide written requests and reports. IUs and POTWs give oral notices in emergencies; however, the IUs and POTWs follow these notices with written ones.

EPA uses the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) to electronically store, track, and access pretreatment

- related program information.December 2015 10



### 4. Describe the efforts to identify duplication

EPA has examined all othe r reporting requirements contained in the CWA and 40 CFR Part 403. In addition, the Agency has examined the following sources to determine whether similar or duplicative information is available elsewhere:

 Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)

 Management Information and Data Systems Division Inventory of Automated Systems

 Environmental Information Clearinghouse

 Inventory of ICRs

EPA did not find any similar or duplicative reporting requirements. No other mechanism for obtaining information on c ontinued compliance with pretreatment standards is available.



### 5. Explain whether or not the collection impacts small entities

In developing this ICR, EPA considered the requirement of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to mini mize the burden of information collections on small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions, all of which are defined as follows in section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act:

 A small business is any business that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) Regulations under section 3 of the Small Business Act.

 A small organization is any non

- profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field.

 A small governmental jurisdiction is the government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district, or special district that has a populatio n fewer than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian tribes.

The reporting requirements for pretreatment program development affect only state governments and municipal governments (i.e., POTWs). Requirements for pretreatment program implementatio n and program/categorical determinations involve some small businesses. The information requested, however, is not available from other sources and is essential for implementing the pretreatment program.

Overall, the burden for small industries is likely to be inherently smaller than that for other IUs because their facilities are less complex. Reporting burdens are less for SIUs than for CIUs. Under the Streamlining Rule, EPA modified some of the sampling requirements for CIUs to provide greater flexibili ty; these changes will benefit some of the smaller CIUs. Under the Streamlining Rule, EPA also provided states and POTWs opportunities to reduce reporting requirements for CIUs that never discharge more than 100 gpd of total process wastewater.

POTWs and s tates may also categorize some CIUs as middle tier, meaning they, too, may be subject to fewer reporting requirements. A number of small facilities are likely to fall into these categories.December 2015 11



### 6. Describe the consequences to the program if the collection is n ot
conducted or is conducted less frequently

EPA considers the reporting requirements associated with the pretreatment program (both the

one

- time and ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements) the minimum necessary for

effective a dministration of the program. EPA also considers the reporting requirements the minimum necessary to ensure effective control of hazardous wastes and to implement RCRA section 3018(b). Most alternative s to the present set of minimal requirements would enta il an increase in reporting burden to respondents. In addition, EPA considers the specific requirements for SIUs and for reporting the discharge of RCRA hazardous substances preferable to repealing the domestic sewage exclusion . The domestic sewage exclus ion is a RCRA provision that excludes domestic sewage and any mixture of domestic sewage and other wastes that pass through a sewer system to a POTW for treatment from being classified as a RCRA

hazardous waste

.

The data collection is mandatory and the co nsequences of not collecting the information would result in a failure of the regulated facilities and/or control authorities to comply with the authorizing Pretreatment Program regulations. Failure to comply could result in enforcement actions including civil or criminal penalties.



### 7. Explain any special circumstances associated with “extraordinar y burden” placed on respondents

There are no special circumstances where “extraord inary burden” is placed on respondents. The collection of information is conducted in a manner consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). Requests for supplemental information for the purposes of emergency response or enf orcement activities are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements.



### 8. Provide a copy and identify the date and page number of the notice in the Federal Register

This ICR was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2015 ( 80 FR 60142 ). The notice included a request for comments on the content and impact of these information collection requirements on the regulated community. EPA did not receive any comments on this ICR. See Appendix D for a copy of the Federal Register notice.



### 9. Expla in any decision to prov ide compensation to respondents

No payments or gifts are provided to respondents.



### 10. Describe any assurance of confiden tiality provided to respondents

The following reporting requirements may contain confidential business informati on (CBI), proprietary information, or information containing compromising trade secrets:December 2015 12

 Pretreatment Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)

 IU Compliance Schedule Report

 POTW and IU Maintenance o r Monitoring Records (excluding effluent data)

 Pretreatment Categ orical Determination Request

 Pretreatment Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variance Request

In such cases, the respondent has the right to request that the information be treated as CBI. EPA and its agents will handle all data so designated in accord ance with the requirements at 40 CFR 403.14(a):

In accordance with 40 CFR Part 2, any information submitted to EPA pursuant to these regulations may be claimed as confidential by the submitter. Any such claim

must be asserted at the time of submission in the manner prescribed on the application form or instructions, or, in the case of other submissions, by the words “confidential business information” on each page containing such information. If no claim is made at the time of submission, EPA may make the information available to the public without further notice. If a claim is asserted, the information will be treated in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR Part 2 (Public Information).

The pretreatment regulations, however, stipulate at 40 CFR 403.14 (b) that industrial effluent data “... shall be made available to the public without restriction.”



### 11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive

nature

Questions of a sensitive nature are not found in this information collection.



### 12. Provide estimates of the hour burden o f the collection of
information

Appendix A presents a detailed d escription of the i nformation c ollected and m ethodology for

e stimating r espondent b urden and c ost of c ollection

. The total annual respondent burden

associated with this ICR is estimated to be 1. 74 million hours per year. Table 12.1 presents the distribution of annual number of respondents, average annual burden, and average annual total

labor costs between s tates, PO TWs, and IUs

.

Table 12.1 Summary of Respondent Burden and Labor Costs Average Annual Respondents Average Annual

Total Burden (hours) Average Annual

Total Labor Costs (201 4 $)

States 36 128,774 $5,609,378
POTWs 1,576 836,040 $34,077,004

IUs 22,139 779,592 $41,754,968

Totals 23,751 1,744,406 $75,391,717

Cost of labor is based on a loaded hourly rate of $43.56 for s tates, $40.76 for POTWs, andDecember 2015 13

$53.56 for IUs. See section A.2 of Appendix A for more details.



### 13. Provide an estimate of the total an nual cost burden to

R espondents

The only non

- labor costs for capital and O&M are those incurred by IUs that receive mass limits

as an alternative to concentration based standards

. The total annual non

- labor respondent costs

associated with this ICR are estimated to be $ 2,515,470 and are adjusted for inflation to
November 2014 dollars using the C PI

.



### 14. Provide an estimate of the annualized cost to the f ederal government

The federal government (EPA R egions and H eadquarters) incurs burden and costs to process, analyze, and maintain the information collected. EPA R egions, in their role as OAs, are users of the State Program Approval Requests, Categorical Determination Requests, FDF Variance Requests, an d other types of information.

Most of the respondent activities described in Appendix A of this ICR generate reports, information, or data, which must be received, reviewed, and stored by an OA. Table C. 8 in Appendix C cal culates the burden to federal age ncies (primarily EPA R egions) as users of these data. Where EPA is the AA (i.e., in 2 5.7 percent of pretreatment programs), the Agency reviews reports generated by pretreatment POTWs. Therefore, the associated review burden for the

activities detailed in Appendix C , Table C. 3 for which reports or data are submitted to federal agencies (as AAs) has been apportioned accordingly.

Appendix C , Table C. 8 , outlines the hours per response, number of responses per year, and total hours per year expended by the federal government (EPA) for reviewing state and POTW

reports. Appendix C, Table C.6 , outlines the hours per response, number of responses per year, and total hours per year expended by the federal government (EPA) in instances where the

f ed eral government regulate s SIUs as the control authority. The annual average number of hours expended by EPA as a user of the data is 2 1 ,582 . Based on an average hourly rate of $ 42.40 1 for a federal employee, the estimated annual cost to EPA is $ 915,086

.

In addition, EPA is the OA for states acting as AAs. Data or reports generated by the activities

listed in Table C. 2 of Appendix C will be sent to EPA R egions for review. The burden for these

review activities is also included in Appendix C , Table C. 8

. The agency burden for the federal

government is summarized in Table 14.1

.

1 The hourly employment cost of federal employees was determined using a methodology established in previous ICRs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 201 5 General Schedule (201 5

- GS), the average annual salary of a government employee at t he GS

- 9, Step 10, level is $5 5,116 . At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly wage would be $2 6.50 . Assuming overhead costs of 6 0 percent, or $1 5.90 per hour, the fully loaded cost of employment for a federal employee would be $ 42.40

.December 2015 14

Table 14.1 Summary of Average Annual Respondents, Responses, Burden, and Costs for Federal Agency for the 3

- Year Period Covered by this ICR Average Annual Burden (hours) Average Annual

Labor Costs (20 14 $) Average Annual

O&M Costs (20 14 $) Total Average

Annual Costs (20 14 $) Agency Totals 21,582 $915,086 $0 $915,086



### 15. Explain the reasons for an adjustments reported in items 13 or 14
of OMB Form 83

- I

The current burden approved by OMB for the existing ICR ( OMB Control No. 2040

- 0009, EPA

ICR No. 0002.1 5 ) is 1,806,516 hours . Th e burden request in this ICR is 62,110 ( 3. 6 % ) hours less

than the current approved burden

. There were no new rules, agency actions or program changes

that re sulted in changes to the burden estimates. The estimated burden for this ICR is based upon the assumptions presented in Appendix B including number of SIUs and approved pretreatment

programs . These assumptions are based upon previous ICR estimates plus adjustments to the number of SIUs and pretreatment programs that resulted from e xtensive consultation with the

States and EPA R egions . The adjustment in burdens are minor a nd mostly result from changes in

the number of SIUs which will include the net effect of reductions due to facilities that closed

,

were downgraded from CIU or SIU status, and the addition of facilities that opened or are newly permitted

. The reduction also reflects a reduction in the number of POTWs projected to develop

a pretreatme nt program during the three

- year ICR period from 64 to 20. Another small component of this adjustment was the reassignment of burden from the states to the f ederal government for instances where the f ederal government regulated SIUs as the control authorit y

. In the previous ICR

, this component had been included in the state burden estimate. Table 15.1 presents a summary of the adjustments in burden estimates from the previously approved ICR.

Table 15.1 Summary of Adjustments in Burden Estimate

Reason Pre vious

Burden New

Burden Difference Percent

Difference

Annual Responses Revised

Estimate 98,438 95,462

- 2,976

- 3.1%

Annual Burden

Hours Revised

Estimate 1,806,516 1,744,406

- 62,110

- 3.6%

Annual Costs Revised

Estimate $2,318,913 $2,515,470 $196,557 7.8%



### 16. Outline any plans for tabulation and publication of the information

EPA uses ICIS to store, t rack, and access pretreatment program related information. ICIS is the national computerized management information system that automates entry, updates, and facilitates retrieval of NPDES data and tracks permit issuance, permit limits and monitoring data, and other data pertaining to facilities regulated under NPDES

. In general

, pretreatment related data contained in ICIS includes data concerning pretreatment programs, p retreatment c omplianceDecember 2015 15

i nspection s, and other program oversight related activities. Information concerning IUs overseen by the s tate or EPA may also be included in ICIS. P retreatment program

- related data can be accessed by the publi c in one of two ways:

 via an on

- line query using EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse and Applications website at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index_java.html. Accessing data via Envirofacts provides a

method to combine ICIS data with other EPA databases and map ping tools,

 via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by submitting a request to EPA

, the state , or the POTW

.



### 17. Explain any requests to not display the expiration date of OMB approval

EPA has not made a request regarding display of the expiration date.



### 18. Explain any exceptions to the certification statement 5 CFR 1320.9, “Agency Certifications for Proposed Collections of
Information.”

The agency is able to certify compliance with all provisions under Item 19 of OMB Form 83

- I. B.



## B. Statistical Metho ds (used for collection of information employing statistical methods)

Statistical methods are not used with this collection.December 2015 16



## Appendix A

- Description of the Information Collected and Methodology for Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of
Collection

Th is appendix section provides the methodology for estimat ing the burden and cost to states, POTWs, and IUs for complying with the National Pretreatment Program requirements

summarized in section 12 . This section also discusses the assumptions used to estima te costs and

burden

. Additional detail about assum ptions is provided in Appendix B . Detailed burden and

cost calculations are shown in Appendix C

.



### A .1

. Respondent Burden

Changes related to EPA’s Streamlining Rule were incorporated into previous Pretreatment ICR s and are carried forward into this ICR . Specifically, the Streamlining Rule enabled CAs to designate certain NSCIUs and other CIUs as middle tier CIUs . Those CIUs designated as

NSCIUs and Middle tier CIUs may have reduced reporting burden s. Based on data from annual reports, award applications, public comments, and other EPA sources, 9.3 2 percent of existing CIUs discharge more than 0 gpd, but less than 100 gpd. An additional 5.7 2 percent of existing CIUs are zero dischargers. Approximatel y 30 2 percent of existing CIUs are assumed to have flows more than 100 gpd, but less than 5,000 gpd and less than 0.01 percent of their POTW’s design flow (referred to as middle tier CIUs ). EPA developed these estimates for a previous ICR

and did not attem pt to recalculate the numbers as there is no indication these assumptions are incorrect or require revision

Based on discussions between EPA OWM and EPA regional staff, all zero

- discharging CIUs may be considered NSCIUs. Based on data collected from eight POTW programs, EPA

estimates that 71 2 percent of small CIUs currently monitor more frequently than the minimum requirement of twice a year. Therefore, this ICR assumes that the monitoring and reporting frequency will not change for IUs that already monito r and report more frequently than the current minimum requirement ( twice a year ) . In addition, EPA estimates that CAs will not reduce the frequency with which they issue permits, monitor, or conduct inspections for these systems (i.e., 71 percent of small CIUs). NSCIUs (the remaining 29 percent along with all zero

discharging CIUs) will complete annual certifications in lieu of annual monitoring and reporting. To gather data to complete this certification, IUs with flows greater than zero will monitor once every 5 years, on average. CAs will discontinue control mechanism issuance and formal inspections for this 29 percent of NSCIUs with flows greater than zero (along with all zero

discharging CIUs); instead, CAs will conduct an annual 2

- hour evaluation, as r equired by the revised regulations.

EPA estimates that 29 percent of the middle tier CIUs will be authorized to reduce their monitoring and reporting requirements from semiannually to annually. This estimate is based on

the estimate that 71 2 percent are c urrently subject to monitoring and reporting requirements that exceed the minimum requirements. In addition, this ICR assumes that for 29 percent of potential

2 EPA developed these estimates for a previous ICR and did not attempt to recalculate the numbers as there is no indication these assumptions are incorrect or require revision

.December 2015 17

middle tier CIUs, CAs will reduce inspections to once every 2 years instead of once a year.

The Streamlining Rule ( incorporated into previous Pretreatment ICRs ) also enable d zero

discharging CIUs that previously reported data semiannually to instead conduct an annual certification. CAs, in turn, shift ed from issuing control mechanisms and conducting annual inspections of these facilities to conducting an annual evaluation. EPA estimates that the burden

for this evaluation to be 2 hours.

A .1.1

. Burden to States

Table A. 1 at the end of this section shows the annual burden hours on an activity

- specific basis, and Appendix B summarizes the assumptions EPA made in developing the estimates. The following paragraphs briefly describe the bases for the burden estimates.

Program Development

State Pretreatment Program Approval Request

Pursuant to consultation with the National Pretreatment Coordinator and EPA Regional

Office s, EPA anticipate s one state will seek pretreatment program authority during this 3

- year ICR period.

Program Implementation

Issuance of SIU Discharge Permits

EPA assumes that all approved pretreatment states (36) will issue some permits to SIUs. EPA assumes that some of these states might issue general control mechanisms in place of individual permits. T he number of responses per year is calculated based on information submitted by states and EPA R egions that indicate that states directly regulate 8.5 percent of all SIUs. (See Appendix B for additional information about this assumption.) CAs will no longer be required to issue permits to NSCIUs. Because some SIUs can now be regulated with general control mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 percent of SIUs will no longer require an individual permit. Thus, the number of responses for each state was reduced by 2 percent. EPA also es timates that it takes 20 burden hours for a CA to issue a discharge permit; this estimate is carried forward in this

ICR.

Inspection and Sampling of SIUs

Inspection : EPA estimates that all 36 pretreatment states will provide oversight for some SIUs. This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection per year for 8.5 percent of all SIUs. Middle

- Tier SIUs will be inspected less frequently (every other year instead of every year). This inc ludes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample.

Sampling and Analysis : All pretreatment states are assumed to perform in

- house analyses for the SIUs that they regulate. This ICR estimates an average sample analysis burden of

15.2 hours. This burde n was estimated based on regional feedback during the development of the ICR for the Streamlining Rule, and it is carried forward from previous ICR s

. P esticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging (PFPR) industry facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded because there are noDecember 2015 18

monitoring requirements.

Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

In this ICR, EPA estimates that only the five states that directly implement the

pretreatmen t program at the local level (40 CFR 403.10(e) states) will be required to publish notices of SNC for their POTWs. EPA estimates that, on average, approximately

1 7 POTWs per state (a total of 8 5 POTWs in the five 403.10(e) states) receive discharges

from S IUs. One

- third of the POTWs in these states (approximately 2 8 POTWs, or 5. 6 per state) are estimated to have SIUs in SNC in a given year. EPA estimates that 3 burden hours are required to complete this activity.

Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Lim its

This ICR assumes that only the five 40 CFR 403.10(e) states will be required to develop

local limits for their POTWs. Each POTW for which the state has assumed CA responsibility ( 8 5 total) will require local limits development once every 5 years. The Agency estimates a burden of 50 hours for this activity.

Program/Categorical Determination

There is no burden for states associated with program/categorical determinations.

States as Users of the Data

Under the National Pretreatment Program, AAs (or the state acting as a CA) must receive, review, and store various requests and reports filed by IUs and POTWs. Table

C

. 6 in Appendix C calculates the burden to state agencies as users of these data.

When states are the AA (i.e., for 7 4.3 percent of pretreatm ent programs), the states review reports generated by pretreatment POTWs. Therefore, the associated review burden for IU and POTW activities described below and in Appendix C (Table C

. 3) for which reports or data are submitted to states (as AAs) has been a pportioned accordingly. The numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the corresponding

activities.

In addition to AA activities, states are the CAs for approximately 8.5 percent of SIUs. As CAs, the states are responsible for receipt an d review of 8.5 percent of all reports, certifications, and data submitted by SIUs. Table C

. 6 in Appendix C , therefore, includes

burden for these activities. Table C .1 shows the total state review burden associated with

the aforementioned activities.

Recordkeeping

Maintain Pretreatment Program Information

This ICR assumes that each pretreatment state (as the AA) spends 50 hours per year maintaining records from POTW pretreatment programs. In addition, states act as CAs

for 8.5 percent of SIUs. An add itional burden of 5 hours per SIU per year (i.e., 5 * 2,487 ) is included for states acting as CAs. (See Appendix C , Table C. 5, for the calculations.)

The Streamlining Rule amended the pretreatment regulations to require that states

maintain records for I Us regulated under general control mechanisms, for IU’s initialDecember 2015 19

samples to demonstrate pollutants not present nor expected to be present, and for POTWs that request a significant modification. Because states already maintain records on IUs

under individual permits, IU sampling records, and records on POTW significant modification requests, EPA does not expect the Streamlining Rule changes to result in changes in the recordkeeping burden.

A .1.2

. Burden to POTWs

Table A.2 (at the end of this section ) shows the annual burden hours on an activity

- specific basis, and Appendix C details these burden calculations. The following paragraphs briefly describe the

bases for the burden estimates.

Program Development

POTW Pretreatment Program Approval Request

EPA R egions have indicated that they expect 20 new programs over the next 3 years. EPA estimates that preparing a program approval request will require 250 burden hours. The regulations also require all approved POTWs to develop and implement enforcement response plans describing procedures for invest igating and responding to IU noncompliance. EPA assumes that POTWs will have completed this requirement as part of their approval request and therefore has not included any additional burden for this activity. This burden was included in the 250 hours for a new program.

The Streamlining Rule did not make any changes to the pretreatment regulations that affect program development burden.

POTW Pretreatment Compliance Schedule Progress Report

EPA expects 46 3 POTWs per year to be subject to pretreatment

- rela ted compliance schedules. The Agency estimates that each schedule will require the submission of three reports per year. EPA estimates that each report will require 5 burden hours to complete.

Program Implementation

Annual POTW Report

For this program act ivity, EPA assumes one report per program per year. EPA further estimates that report preparation will take each POTW 40 burden hours to develop

. POTW Program Modifications

EPA estimates that 20 percent of approved programs will request program modifica tions of some type each year. EPA estimates that preparing program approval requests will

take each POTW 40 burden hours.

Issuance of Discharge Permits or Other Control Mechanisms for SIUs

Because SIU control mechanisms typically have 5

- year terms, EPA estimates that each year POTWs (as CAs) will issue control mechanisms to 20 percent of the SIUs that are regulated by POTWs ( 88.8 percent of all SIUs). Under Streamlining, POTWs will not be

3 EPA developed th is estimate for a previous ICR and did not attempt to recalculate the numbers as th ere is no indication these assumptions are incorrect or require revision.December 2015 20

required to issue permits to NSCIUs. In addition, because POTWs ma y regulate some SIUs with general control mechanisms, EPA estimates that 2 percent of SIUs will no longer require an individual control mechanism. Thus, the number of responses for each POTW will fall by 2 percent. EPA estimates that POTWs will require 20 hours to issue a control mechanism. EPA’s estimate of the number of SIUs to be covered by general control mechanisms is carried forward from the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR. EPA’s estimate of the number of hours POTWs will require to issue individual con trol mechanisms is carried forward from the Pretreatment Program ICR.

Inspection and Sampling of CIU and SIU Effluent

Inspection: This ICR assumes 8 burden hours to perform one inspection per year for all SIUs regulated by POTWs. Middle t ier C IUs will be inspected less frequently (every other year instead of every year). This includes the time necessary to collect an effluent sample. This assumption was carried forward from the previous ICR.

Sampling and Analysis : EPA assumes that in

- house sampling and a nalysis will require 15.2 hours. PFPR facilities opting for the pollution prevention option are excluded because there are no monitoring requirements.

Mass Limits

POTWs establishing equivalent mass limits as an alternative to concentration limits to

meet c oncentration

- based categorical pretreatment standards must determine whether the application of a mass limit is appropriate. POTWs will perform these demonstrations. Currently, 14 Pretreatment Standards categories are expressed as concentration limits

alon e and are therefore eligible for equivalent mass limits under 40 CFR 403.6(c )(5). The following categories are included in this list:

 Inorganic Chemicals (§ 415)

 Fertilizer manufacturing (§ 418)

 Petroleum refining (§ 419)

 Steam Electric Power Generating (§ 423)

 Leather Tanning (§ 425)

 Glass Manufacturing (§ 426)

 Rubber Manufacturing (§ 428)

 Metal Finishing (§ 433)

 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (§ 439)

 Transportation Equipment Cleaning (§ 442)

 Paving and Roofing Materials (§ 443)

 Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors Subcategory of the Waste Combustors Point Source Category (§ 444)

 Carbon Black Manufacturing (§ 458)

 Electrical and Electronic Components (§ 469)

EPA estimates that there are approximately 12,000 facilities in these c ategories and that 1 percent of them will request that the POTW assess flow variability, which will require 8 burden hours to complete. These estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of theDecember 2015 21

Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning

of section 1.

Equivalent Concentration Limits

CAs establishing concentration

- based pretreatment standards instead of mass

- based limits must document that dilution is not being used as a substitute for treatment (see 40 CFR 403.6(d) and 414.111(a) and Part 419). In addition, the CA is required to adjust permit limits using the combined wastestream formula in 40 CFR 403.6(e) wh en the wastestream used for demonstrating compliance with the permit limits is mixed with non

process wastewater or wastewater from other processes. The POTW will perform these demonstrations. Currently, three Pretreatment Standards categories are eligible to use this provision

–– Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF); Petroleum Refining; and Pesticide Chemical manufacturing facilities. EPA estimates that there are

420 facilities in these categories . EPA further estimates that 4 percent of these facilities will request that the POTW assess flow variability; each assessment will require a POTW 8 burden hours to complete. These estimates are carried forward from the assumptions in the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program, which was done as part of the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and is explained at the beginning

of this section

. Evaluation of SIUs for Slug Control Plan

The final regulatory changes eliminate the requirement that POTWs evaluate the need for

a slug control plan for each SIU every 2 years. POTWs may now review the need for slug control plans as part of their ongoing oversight of IUs. Therefore, EPA estimates no burden for this requirement.

Public Notification of Significant Noncompliance

EPA ex pects POTWs to require 3 hours for public notification activities. EPA assumes

that one

- third of POTWs with pretreatment programs will have SIUs in SNC in a given

year.

Evaluation of the Need to Revise Local Limits

EPA assumes in this ICR that all pretre atment programs will reevaluate the need to develop local limits once every 5 years. EPA estimates that POTWs will require 50 hours to complete this activity.

SIU Notification of Applicable Standards and Regulations

At the time of promulgation of this ICR

, EPA has not promulgated any new categorical

standards . EPA is in the process of developing new categorical standards that may be in effect during the 3

- year life of this ICR. At this time

, it is not possible to assess the expected impacts of the new stan dards. Therefore, EPA will develop revis ed burden

estimates once these new standards are finalized

. Program/Categorical Determination

Removal Credit Approval Requests

Based on input from EPA Regional Office s, the Agency estimates three respondents per year. EPA further estimates that a POTW will require 125 hours to prepare and submitDecember 2015 22

each request.

Removal Credit Self

- Monitoring Reports

EPA estimates 25 respondents per year based on the number of POTWs with approved removal credit variances as reporte d by EPA Regional Office s. EPA assumes that a POTW will require 40 hours per report.

POTWs as Users of the Data

Most of the IU respondents described below and in Table A.3 generate reports, information, or data that CAs must receive, review, and store. Tab le C. 7 in Appendix C calculates the burden to POTWs as users of these data. As CAs, POTWs are responsible for receiving and reviewing 88.8 percent of all reports, certifications, and data submitted by SIUs. EPA has, therefore, apportioned the review burden for reports or data submitted by SIUs to POTWs (as CAs). The numbers of respondents and responses are linked directly to the corresponding activities. Table A.2 shows the total POTW review burden associated with each activity.

Recordkeeping

Maintenance of Monitoring Records

EPA expects each pretreatment POTW to spend 100 hours per year maintaining SIU monitoring records. Changes in the pretreatment regulations due to the Streamlining Rule

means that POTWs will have to maintain records for IUs regulated under general control mechanisms, as well as IUs’ initial samples to demonstrate pollutants neither present nor expected to be present. Because POTWs already maintain records on IUs under individual permits and IU sampling records, EPA has n ot estimated any additional recordkeeping burden for POTWs as a result of the Streamlining Rule.

A .1.3

. Burden to Industrial Users

Table A.3 (at the end of this section) shows the estimated annual burden hours for each type of information collected, and Ap pendix C details these burden calculations. The bases for the

burden estimates are detailed below.

Program Development

EPA assumes no IU reporting and recordkeeping burden program development.

Program Implementation

The program implementation burden estimates for IUs were calculated per activity, as

detailed below.

Baseline Monitoring Report

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the number of CIUs.

EPA does anticipate the promulgation of a new effluent guidelines for indire ct dischargers in the Dental Category and in the Unconventional Oil & Gas D rilling Categories. However, the reporting burden for th ese categor ies will be included in separate ICR s specific to th ose rulemaking effort s . EPA does not anticipate the promulgation of other new effluent guidelines for indirect dischargers which would result

in additional associated BMR requirements.December 2015 23

EPA assumes 14.3 hours for new source CIUs conducting baseline monitoring analysis and 28 burden hours for preparing a Baseline Monitoring Report.

IU Compliance Schedule Progress Report

For new sources, EPA assumes a 2 percent gross annual growth in the number of CIUs. In the recalculation of the entire pretreatment program , done as part of the Pretreatment

Streamlinin g ICR (EPA ICR No. 0002.12) and explained in section 1 , EPA estimated that 25 percent of new sources or facilities subject to new effluent guidelines would need to complete compliance schedules. The Agency further assumed an IU would require 4 hours to pre pare each compliance schedule progress report. EPA is carrying forward these assumptions for this ICR.

IU Compliance Attainment Report

CIUs must complete a compliance attainment report within 90 days following the date for final compliance with a categor ical pretreatment standard. New source CIUs must provide such a report within 90 days of commencing discharge of the categorically regulated wastestream to the POTW. EPA has annualized the burden for new sources

over the 3

- year ICR period. EPA estimates th at C IUs will require 20 hours to prepare the compliance attainment reports and 14.3 hours to conduct the associated analyses.

IU Resampling Compliance Report

All IUs are required to notify the CA immediately of all discharges that could potentially

cause problems for the POTW. IUs are further required to notify the CA and resample following a violation. EPA assumes that 10 percent of all IUs will need to resample every year. The 1,500 IUs with PFPR P2 certification are not included in the estimate because the resampling requirements do not apply to these facilities. EPA assumes that an IU will require 4 hours for sampling, 12 hours for analysis, and 1 hour for reporting each year.

IU Self

- Monitoring Compliance Report

Under the Streamlining Rule, NSCIUs a re not required to conduct periodic self

monitoring; instead, they are required to submit annual certifications. (This ICR assumes that sampling and analysis is required once every 5 years to complete this certification.) In addition, certain middle tier C IUs will monitor and report once a year instead of twice a year. These assumption s are carried forward from the Pretreatment Streamlining ICR.

The Streamlining Rule ICR assumed that a CIU will require 11.6 hours and a non

categorical SIU will require 9.5 hours to complete the report twice per year. EPA has excluded PFPR facilities opting for the P2 option from the estimate because these facilities have no monitoring requirements.

Pollution Prevention Plans

This ICR assumes that all PFPR facilities (1,500 facilities) will opt for the P2 alternative and that all 1,500 facilities have already prepared and submitted an initial certification for the P2 alternative. Consistent with the assumptions in the preamble for the PFPR rule (61 FR 57541), this ICR assumes that 10 percent of the facilities that are implementing a P2 alternative plan will submit modifications to P2 plans. The burden for the periodicDecember 2015 24

certification requirements is discussed below under “Periodi c Certifications.”

Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category

EPA estimates that 10 fa cilities would be subject to these requirements. EPA estimates that the burden to respondents associated with collecting, reporting and maintaining records of monitoring data is 826 hours.

Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipme nt Cl eaning Point Source Category.

EPA estimates that 84 facilities would be subject to these requirements.

Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category

EPA estimates that 10 facilities would be subject to these requirements.

Requ est for Coverage Under a General Control Mechanism

This ICR assumes that 2 percent of all S IUs will be covered under a general control mechanism. EPA estimates that an IU will require 0.5 hour to complete each request.

Periodic Certifications

Below is a su mmary of assumptions about the universe of indirect dischargers with certification potential (the number of facilities covered by the relevant part or subpart(s) of 40 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter N). EPA assumes in this ICR that periodic certifications requ ire C IUs 1 hour to complete, which is consistent with the Information Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information (OMB No. 2040

- 0110, EPA ICR No. 1427.07). Assumptions regarding the percentage of

facilities that will undertake certifications activities are summarized below. Except where noted, these assumptions are also consistent with the Information Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information. A ssumptions regarding

the number of responses per year are also explained below. EPA developed these estimates for a previous ICR and did not attempt to recalculate the numbers as there is no readily available source or indication that these assumptions are incorrect or require

revision

.

 A luminum Forming Point Source Category (Part 467) . The estimated number of indirect dischargers in the Aluminum Forming Point Source Category (72 facilities) is

from the Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Aluminum Forming: Point Source Category (EPA 440184073, June 1984). EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 72 aluminum forming facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from cyanide monitoring.

 Canmaking (Part 465, Subpart D) . Canmaking facilities covered by Part 465, Subpart D, are required to submit a one

- time notification if the alloy used in making cansDecember 2015 25 contains less than 1 percent manganese. For indirect dischargers, EPA expects few (if any) such notificati ons in the future. As a conservative estimate, this ICR assumes one such notification during the next 3 years.

 Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category (Part 437) . The preamble to the

final Central Waste Treatment Rule indicates that 37 facilities “accept wastes from multiple subcategories and could be subject to the multiple wastestream subcategory” (65 FR 81267). Based on data in the development document for the final rule, approximately 91.5 percent of CWT facilities are indirect dischargers (pp . 4

– 6). In this ICR, EPA applies the overall percentage of indirect dischargers to the total number of dischargers that accept wastes from multiple subcategories to arrive at 34 indirect discharger that accept waste from multiple subcategories (37 * 91.5% = 34). EPA also assumes that 34 respondents complete initial certification statements for coverage under Part 437, Subpart D. Each of these 34 facilities must submit an annual certification. (This burden was discussed in the 2003 Pretreatment Program ICR, but it is repeated here for completeness.)

 Coil Coating Point Source Category (Part 465) . The estimated number of indirect dischargers in the Coil Coating Point Source Categories (41 facilities) is from the Technical Support Document for the 2004 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (EPA

821

- R

- 04

- 014, August 2004) (“the TSD”). 4 EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 41 coil coating facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from cyanide monitoring. This inform ation collection item does not apply to canmaking facilities (Part 465, Subpart D) because they are not required to monitor for cyanide.

 Electrical and Electronic Components (Part 469) . The number of indirect dischargers

in the Electrical and Electronic Components Point Source Category (91 facilities) is also from the August 2004 TSD, which in turn uses Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data. EPA estimates that approximately 50 percent of these 91 electrical and electronic components facilities will choose t o submit a total toxic organic (TTO) certification in lieu of TTO monitoring. Certifications must be submitted twice a year.

 Electroplating Point Source Category (Part 413) and Metal Finishing Point Source Category . The estimated number of indirect dischar gers in the Electroplating and Metal Finishing Point Source Categories (7,644 total) is from data compiled by EPA’s Office of Science and Technology (OST) during the development of the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) rule. The categories are combined b ecause the facilities’ operations are similar. EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 7,644 electroplating and metal finishing facilities will choose to submit a TTO

4 The TSD estimates the number of indirect dischargers based on data from the TRI. There are limitations associated with these TRI data. Because neither small establishments (fewer t han 10 employees) nor facilities that do not meet the reporting thresholds are required to report, facilities reporting to TRI might be a very small subset of an industry. Also, because facilities are identified by SIC code, not by point source category, i t might be difficult or impossible to identify the point source category that is the source of the toxic wastewater releases for some SIC codes. For example, coil coating is an operation that is part of canmaking (3411, metal cans). Some of these facilitie s have coil coating operations, but they cannot be identified from the data in TRI.December 2015 26 certification semiannually in lieu of TTO monitoring. This assumption is con sistent with the assumptions associated with the Metal Finishing category.

 Pesticide Chemicals (Part 455) . The estimated number of indirect dischargers covered by PFPR regulations (1,500 facilities) is from the preamble to the PFPR rule (61 FR 57541). Cons istent with that preamble, EPA assumes in this ICR that all 1,500 indirect dischargers in the PFPR category will opt for the P2 alternative and that all 1,500 facilities will submit two certifications per year. These assumptions are

consistent with the 199 6, 2000, and 2005 pretreatment program ICRs and with the preamble to the PFPR rule (61 FR 57541). For consistency with the Information Collection Request for the NPDES/ Compliance Assessment/ Certification Information, EPA assumes t hat certifications will require IUs 1 hour each.

 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category (Part 439) . The estimated number of facilities (286) subject to guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category is based on data gathered by OST during the de velopment of the 1998 final rule. EPA estimates, on the basis of data in effluent guideline development documents, that approximately 40 percent of the pharmaceutical facilities are in a subcategory that potentially uses cyanide. Of these, EPA estimates

th at 75 percent will choose to submit a certification once every permit cycle (once every 5 years).

 Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category (Part 466). The estimated number of indirect dischargers in the Porcelain Enameling Category (146) is from data coll ected by OST during development of the TSD but not included in the final TSD. The estimate includes TRI data from facilities with SIC codes 3431, 3469, 3479, 3631, 3633, 3632, and 3639, each of which reported transfers of TRI chemicals to POTWs

in 2000. Al though this number represents EPA’s best estimate, the Agency is uncertain about the fit between these SIC codes and indirect dischargers covered in the Porcelain Enameling Category because operations in these SIC codes could be covered by the Metal Finish ing Category. EPA estimates that 50 percent of these 146 porcelain enameling facilities will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption from chromium monitoring

 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Source Category (Part 430) . To estimate the universe of potentially affected facilities, EPA has used estimates in this ICR from the Supplemental Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category: Subpart B (Bleached Papergr ade Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite) and from EPA’s Guidance Manual for Pulp, Paper and Paperboard and Builders’ Paper and Board

Mills Pretreatment Standards (September 21, 1984). EPA estimates that 119 of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category not including Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and Subpart E (Papergrade Sulfite) will choose to submit an annual certification requesting an exemption Based on EPA ICR No. 2015.02, OMB Control

Number 2040

- 0242, EPA estimated that si x Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) facilities would certify.December 2015 27  Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Part 423) . The estimated number of facilities in the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category is

from the Develop ment Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category (November 1982). EPA estimates that approximately 75 percent of these 117 facilities will choose to provide an annual de monstration and provide a certification requesting an exemption from monitoring requirements for priority pollutants other

than chromium and zinc.

IU Slug Load Notification

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 100 SIUs per year will be required to provide a slug load notification. EPA estimates the average burden per CIU response to be 2 hours. The Agency further estimates that an additional 450 non

- categorical SIUs per year will be required to provide a slug load notification. EPA estimates the average burden pe r SIU response to be 0.25 hour.

Notification of Changed Discharge

EPA assumes that 1,000 IUs per year will provide notification of a changed discharge. EPA estimates that this notification will require 4 burden hours.

Bypass Notification

In this ICR, EPA carries forward from the previous ICR the assum ption that 1,427 SIUs per year will report bypasses and that CAs will require 75 percent of these SIUs (1,070 SIUs) to conduct follow

- up activities. EPA assumes IUs will require 5 hours for by pass notification and 2 hours for follow

- up activities.

Notification of Changed Monitoring Location

For this ICR, EPA estimates that 50 SIUs will provide notification of a changed monitoring location per year. EPA estimates the SIUs will require 1 hour to provide

notification.

Slug Control Plan

EPA estima tes that 10 percent of all new C IUs will need to develop a slug control plan.

EPA based the number of new C IUs on an assumed growth rate of 2 percent for existing

CIUs and to account for any facilities that will be covered under new categorical

standards. W hile new categorical standards are anticipated during this ICR cycle

, the expected impacts of the new standards cannot be specifically assessed at this time

. EPA also estimates that 5 percent of all n ew non

- categorical SIUs will need to develop a slug control plan

. The Agency estimates that this activity will require 2 hours per SIU

Program/Categorical Determination

Categorical Determination Request

The deadline for a categorical determination request has passed for a ll existing effluent guidelines

. While new categorical standards are anticipated during this ICR cycle, the expected impacts of the new standards cannot be specifically assessed at this time Therefore, no estimate for formal categor ical determination requests are included for th is

3

- year ICR period. A New Source must request this certification prior to commencingDecember 2015 28

discharge.

Alternative Limits Modification Request

In this ICR, EPA assumes that 10 percent of all new CIUs will request alternative limits (i.e., use the combined wastestream formula). EPA estimates that an IU will require 2 hours to complete a request.

Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Request

FDF variance requests must be submitted within 180 days following pub lication of a new effluent guideline. EPA knows of no pending FDF variance requests associated with recently promulgated guidelines. While new categorical standards are anticipated during this ICR cycle, the expected impacts of the new standards cannot be specifically assessed

at this time , no estimate for FDF variance requests are included . In addition, no new dischargers under existing guidelines are anticipated because facilities are required to submit requests no later than 180 days after promulgation o f the categorical pretreatment

standard.

Net/Gross Adjustment Request

Based on information provided by EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinators, EPA estimates that two net/gross adjustment requests will be submitted each year. The Agency

further estimates that IUs will require 50 hours per request.

Recordkeeping

Maintain Monitoring Records

All SIUs must maintain monitoring records. EPA estimates that SIUs will require 2 hours per year to maintain pretreatment records. Also , IUs with general control mech anisms

have to maintain associated records. CIUs that request a variance for pollutants neither present nor expected to be present also have to maintain sampling and reporting records. Because IUs already maintain individual permit and sampling records, EP A estimates no additional SIU reporting and recordkeeping burden.



### A .2

. Respondent Costs

A .2.1

. Cost to States

Table A.1 shows that the annual costs to states are approximately $ 5.6 million. The labor costs, which account for all state costs, are based on an hourly rate of $43.56 from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 3: Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: State and loca l government workers, by major occupational and industry group,

S eptember 2014

.December 2015 29

Table A.1. Average Annual State Burden a nd Costs

Activity Annual

Burden

Hours Annual Cost ($K) Responses

Capital and
O&M Cost Labor Cost Total Cost

Program development 100 $0 $4.4 $4.4 0.3

Program implementation 49,559 $0 $2,159 $2,159 2,346

Program/categorical

determination 0 $0 $0 $0 0

States as users of data 67,875 $0 $2,957 $2,957 NA

Recordkeeping 11,240 $0 $490 $490 NA

Total 128,774 $0 $5,609 $5,609 2,347

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in thousands of dollars.

A.2.2

. Cost to POTWs

Table A.2 shows that the annual costs to POTWs are approximately $ 34 .1 million . The average hourly rate for municipal employees, which account for all POTW costs, as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $ 40.76 (including 50% overhead). Updated rates are derived from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in a

table entitled May 20 13 National In dustry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage

Estimates and adjusted to September 2014 dollars using the ECI.

Table A.2 Average Annual POTW Burden a nd Costs

Activity Annual

Burden

Hours Annual Cost ($K) Responses

Capital and
O&M Cost Labor Cost Total Cost

Program development 2,357 $0 $96 $96 145

Program implementation 598,825 $0 $24,408 $24,408 26,611
Program/categorical

determination 1,375 $0 $56 $56 28

POTWs as users of data 75,883 $0 $3,093 $3,093 NA

Recordkeeping 157,600 $0 $6,424 $6,424 NA

Total 836,040 $0 $34,077 $34,077 26,783

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in thousands of dollars.

A .2.3

. Cost to Industrial Users

Table A.3 shows the total costs for IUs over the 3

- year ICR period. Annual costs are approximately $4 4 million, comprised of labor and capital and O&M cost. Table C.4 in Appendix C presents the detailed calculations.

Labor costs are based on the number of burden h ours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. For all IU activities, EPA used the hourly rate of $53.56 based on the rate

for U .S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Total Compensation for Management, professional, and related category from Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 5

- Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of totalDecember 2015 30

compensation: Private industry, by major occupational group and bargaining status, September

201 4

.

C a pital and O&M costs are incurred by IUs that receive mass limits as an alternative to

concentration based standards.

Table A.3. Average Annual Industrial User Burden and Costs

Activity Annual

Burden

Hours Annual Cost ($k) Responses

Capital and
O&M Cost Labor Cost Total Cost

Program development 0 $0 $0 $0 0

Program implementation 735,17 5 $2,515 $39,376 $41,89 1 66,31 0
Program/categorical

determination 139 $0 $7 $7 22

IUs as users of data 0 $0 $0 $0 NA

Recordkeeping 44,278 $0 $2,372 $2,372 NA

Total 779,59 2 $2,515 $41,755 $44,27 0 66,33 2

NOTE: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Costs in thousands of dollars.December 2015 31



## Appendix B

– Assumptions for Developing Burden and Cost

Estimates

The table below summarizes the assumptions and input values used to calculate burden. These assumptions are based upon previous ICR estimates plus adjustments to the number of SIUs and pretreatment programs that resulted from extensive consultation with the States and EPA

R egions.

Pret reatment Program Data Numbers Basis

Total Number of SIUs 22,139 A
Number of CIUs 9,541 A Number of noncategorical

- SIUs 12,598 A
Number of Zero

- Discharge NSCIUs 548 B Number of CIUs that Discharge > 0 and < 100 gpd 883 B
Number of Non

- Zero

- Discharge NSCIUs 256 B
Number of NSCIUs 804 B
Number of Middle Tier CIUs 2,862 B Number of Middle Tier CIUs that reduce monitoring 830 B Number of State Run POTW Pretreatment Programs in 40 CFR §403.10(e) States 85

A Total Number of Approved Programs 1,576 A Number of 40 CFR §403.10(e) States 5 A Number of States with approved Pretreatment Programs 36 A Number of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority 19,652 A Percentage of SIUs with POTWs as Control Authority 88.8% A
Number of SIUs with State/EPA as Control Authority 2,487 A Percentage of SIUs with State as Control Authority 8.5% A Percentage of SIUs with EPA as Control Authority 2.7% A Percentage of SIUs Resampling (for violations) 10% A Hourly Rate for f

ederal employees (50% Overhead (OH)) 42.40 C Hourly Rate for State employees (50% OH) 43.56 C Hourly Rate for POTW employees (50% OH) 40.76 C Hourly Rate for Private Industry employees (100% OH) 53.56 C
Number of New Source CIUs 195 B Number of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority 405 A Percentage of POTWs with EPA as Approval Authority 25.7% A Number of POTWs with State as Approval Authority 1,171 A Percentage of POTWs with State as Approval Authority 74.3% A Number of POTWs projected to develop a pretreatment program during the three

- year ICR period 20

D Removal Credit Approval Requests 3 E Percentage of CIUs that are < 100 (including zero) 15.0% E Of which, percent that are zero dischargers 38.3% EDecember 2015 32

Percentage of CIUs in the middle tier 30.0% E Percentage of middle tier that will reduce monitoring 29.0% E

Basis Codes:

A: Based on co nsultation with States and EPA R egions

B: Based on A (consultation) combined with assumed factors.

C: Described in supporting statement

D: Revised EPA estimate

E: Assumed factors/values from previous ICRDecember 2015 33



## Appendix C

– Detailed Results of Respondent Burden and Cost Analysis for the Information Collection Requirements of the National Pretreatment Program

(See Tables C.1 through C.8 in attached PDF document)December 2015 34



## Appendix D

- Copy of Regulation Authorizing Data Collection and Federal Register Notice

D.1 Pretreatment Streamlining Rule

( See attached PDF document)



### D.2 ICR Federal Register Notice

( See attached PDF document)